2024 attendance thread

[redjonn]

On 20/05/2024 at 16:17, Taffy Tiger said:

Hi Harry

 

I do agree that there should be some kind of ratio measurement for catchment area to attendances , and I would also add fandom (ie fan engagement) to that as well , otherwise , and as it stands , teams with a larger catchment area , are being rewarded twice just for having more people to target .

 

However , there is a caveat to this . I don't think you can say 7.5% for top marks , as this isn't possible in many cases because of the size of the stadium.

 

To say 7.5% would mean Leeds would have to get around 60k average attendance.

I don't think it is possible to impose a one size fits all percentage scale in this instance.

That said , I do strongly agree that some sort of scaling should be used to qualify for the full 1.5 points available in catchment area , and this scaling should also allow clubs not achieving the full 1.5 points for catchment area to increase their score in a smilar way , up to 1.5 points.

 

In effect , every club should at least have the opportunity to score the maximum points in each of the IMG criteria , however unlikely that may be in some cases.

You have to be able to differentiate for increased levels of fans attending taking account of the population catchment.  Otherwise some clubs like Leeds given existing attendance will not need to make as much effort as a Leigh.   Currently Leigh are making lots of effort to attract increased attendance yet get little reward for that, Leeds can make none and will be rewarded more.

well come up with a formula for a Base Level of attendance for each club, can be simple as average attendance over a agreed period or come up with a more complex one, whatever.   Then points are awarded for percentage amounts of increased support achieved.   In addition if the attendance goes backwards points are deducted.

[Dave T]

It truly is bizarre that people are trying to do all sorts to get small clubs given more credit for crowds than Leeds. 

[bobbruce]

13 minutes ago, redjonn said:

You have to be able to differentiate for increased levels of fans attending taking account of the population catchment.  Otherwise some clubs like Leeds given existing attendance will not need to make as much effort as a Leigh.   Currently Leigh are making lots of effort to attract increased attendance yet get little reward for that, Leeds can make none and will be rewarded more.

well come up with a formula for a Base Level of attendance for each club, can be simple as average attendance over a agreed period or come up with a more complex one, whatever.   Then points are awarded for percentage amounts of increased support achieved.   In addition if the attendance goes backwards points are deducted.

Isn’t that like giving an award for the hardest tryer  It is to reward clubs with most fans so the clubs with most fans should get the points. 

[Eddie]

This doesn’t deserve its own thread so asking here, does anyone know why Sky don’t show the Championship table? It seems like it’s deliberately left out as they do show league one. 
 

https://www.skysports.com/rugbyleague/tables

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

This doesn’t deserve its own thread so asking here, does anyone know why Sky don’t show the Championship table? It seems like it’s deliberately left out as they do show league one. 
 

https://www.skysports.com/rugbyleague/tables

Its on the App fine

[LeytherRob]

15 hours ago, Dave T said:

It truly is bizarre that people are trying to do all sorts to get small clubs given more credit for crowds than Leeds. 

Yeah I don’t get it either. I’m perfectly comfortable with the fact that Leigh aren’t, never have been and most likely never will be anything but a smaller club than Leeds and I don’t see a problem with that being reflected in the IMG points. 

[redjonn]

16 hours ago, bobbruce said:

Isn’t that like giving an award for the hardest tryer  It is to reward clubs with most fans so the clubs with most fans should get the points. 

for me it should award those making the greater efforts to improve, not a number that a say a club like Leeds can easily achieve whilst say a club outside SL or just newly inserted into SL would have great difficulty for a number of years to achieve.  Just that I thought the metrics were aimed at achieving improvements and hence helping towards the overall improvement of the sport.

As a imaginary example using the IMG attendance number to achieve max points on attendance,  Leeds attendance could go backwards and still achieve maximum points, whilst say a Wakefield could significant increase yet not achieve max points/same points.

Anyway it is what it is....

[LeytherRob]

3 hours ago, redjonn said:

for me it should award those making the greater efforts to improve, not a number that a say a club like Leeds can easily achieve whilst say a club outside SL or just newly inserted into SL would have great difficulty for a number of years to achieve.  Just that I thought the metrics were aimed at achieving improvements and hence helping towards the overall improvement of the sport.

As a imaginary example using the IMG attendance number to achieve max points on attendance,  Leeds attendance could go backwards and still achieve maximum points, whilst say a Wakefield could significant increase yet not achieve max points/same points.

Anyway it is what it is....

Ultimately, what matters to the sport is numbers through the gates and watching on TV, the context behind them is irrelevant. 

The only thing unfair about measuring attendances in this way for IMG points in my opinion, is that it stacks against championship/league 1 clubs who are strangled by their exposure levels. It(along with several other factors) make the prospect of achieving grade A outside the top tier incredibly difficult which could soon become the only way to get promoted

[Tommygilf]

4 hours ago, redjonn said:

for me it should award those making the greater efforts to improve, not a number that a say a club like Leeds can easily achieve whilst say a club outside SL or just newly inserted into SL would have great difficulty for a number of years to achieve.  Just that I thought the metrics were aimed at achieving improvements and hence helping towards the overall improvement of the sport.

As a imaginary example using the IMG attendance number to achieve max points on attendance,  Leeds attendance could go backwards and still achieve maximum points, whilst say a Wakefield could significant increase yet not achieve max points/same points.

Anyway it is what it is....

That's because, relatively, Leeds' attendances are massive and Wakefield's are not.

[yipyee]

On 25/05/2024 at 17:47, redjonn said:

You have to be able to differentiate for increased levels of fans attending taking account of the population catchment.  Otherwise some clubs like Leeds given existing attendance will not need to make as much effort as a Leigh.   Currently Leigh are making lots of effort to attract increased attendance yet get little reward for that, Leeds can make none and will be rewarded more.

well come up with a formula for a Base Level of attendance for each club, can be simple as average attendance over a agreed period or come up with a more complex one, whatever.   Then points are awarded for percentage amounts of increased support achieved.   In addition if the attendance goes backwards points are deducted.

Whilst that is a good suggestion for growth let's say for instance leigh don't even meet the minimum standards hence why they need to work harder! 

The key is to get 12 clubs upto A grade then your suggestion would be good to drive further growth. Let's say Wigan need to drive growth it would be easy to tap into the leigh area rather than the harder market northwards. Let's give the likes of leigh chance to catch up and if wigan want to rest on their laurels then so be it.

[yipyee]

3 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

Ultimately, what matters to the sport is numbers through the gates and watching on TV, the context behind them is irrelevant. 

The only thing unfair about measuring attendances in this way for IMG points in my opinion, is that it stacks against championship/league 1 clubs who are strangled by their exposure levels. It(along with several other factors) make the prospect of achieving grade A outside the top tier incredibly difficult which could soon become the only way to get promoted

So Bradford have a sleeping fan base, be easy if they were on a role in the championship to awaken them even in the championship 

[LeytherRob]

10 minutes ago, yipyee said:

So Bradford have a sleeping fan base, be easy if they were on a role in the championship to awaken them even in the championship 

They could climb, but they'd never get close to what they could be in SL. Same goes for every club.

Sure, some relegated clubs will come down with good attendances(Wakey, Bradford, Widnes, KR) but if they don't bounce back quickly they soon start leaving in droves. The novelty of playing new teams wears off quickly and the numbers don't lie.

[dboy]

On 25/05/2024 at 17:49, Dave T said:

It truly is bizarre that people are trying to do all sorts to get small clubs given more credit for crowds than Leeds. 

It is.

But so is awarding a club more IMG points because they are located in a "big" place.

Why are we rewarding "big" places where relatively few people are attracted to that club?

This thread is inextricably linked to IMG/catchment.

Scrap the pillar.

 

[Tommygilf]

4 minutes ago, dboy said:

Why are we rewarding "big" places where relatively few people are attracted to that club?

Because "relatively" doesn't pay the bills. I try harder than Mr Bezos does every day, doesn't make me richer than him.

Everyone on my street, maybe 100, might go to the local corner shop, that doesn't make it better than the big super market where 10s of thousands (but relatively less) of people go every week. 

IMG want the game to be in big markets with the most opportunity to sell content and sponsorships and with the most cultural influence. 

Edited May 26, 2024 by Tommygilf

[dboy]

But "relative to" is what IMG are scoring.

Scrap the catchment pillar.

[LeytherRob]

 

 

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, dboy said:

It is.

But so is awarding a club more IMG points because they are located in a "big" place.

Why are we rewarding "big" places where relatively few people are attracted to that club?

This thread is inextricably linked to IMG/catchment.

Scrap the pillar.

 

So they get relatively few fans. But still more than anyone else. That's exactly the point which is being spectacularly missed.. 

That's why they award points for being in larger areas. It's a feature they want to encourage. 

[The Mighty Trin]

48 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

 

 

Very shocked at this, I would have thought it would be between 6k&8k

[dboy]

But "they" don't.

Leeds, as the given example, get relatively FEWER fans per population, than say, Leigh, who get a higher proportion of their catchment population following them.

Why are we rewarding "big", "successful" clubs, who have relatively little impact in their catchments?

800k people live in Leeds, yet Rhinos attract only 10k home fans.

Why on Earth is that rewarded?

Just scrap the catchment score.

[dboy]

8 minutes ago, The Mighty Trin said:

Very shocked at this, I would have thought it would be between 6k&8k

THIS proves the flaw in the IMG catchment score.

Massive catchment - yet no-one watches them.

WHY are the given credit for that?

Do not reply with "potential"!

Edited May 26, 2024 by dboy

[Tommygilf]

3 hours ago, dboy said:

But "they" don't.

Leeds, as the given example, get relatively FEWER fans per population, than say, Leigh, who get a higher proportion of their catchment population following them.

Why are we rewarding "big", "successful" clubs, who have relatively little impact in their catchments?

800k people live in Leeds, yet Rhinos attract only 10k home fans.

Why on Earth is that rewarded?

Just scrap the catchment score.

Because Leigh do really really really well and spend lots of money trying really really really hard, and still get half as many as Leeds do in a bad year.

That's the difference, and is exactly why they want clubs in bigger markets.

[Bring back GB]

Barrow v Fev 2311

[Chrispmartha]

10 hours ago, dboy said:

But "they" don't.

Leeds, as the given example, get relatively FEWER fans per population, than say, Leigh, who get a higher proportion of their catchment population following them.

Why are we rewarding "big", "successful" clubs, who have relatively little impact in their catchments?

800k people live in Leeds, yet Rhinos attract only 10k home fans.

Why on Earth is that rewarded?

Just scrap the catchment score.

I think you’re missing the point.

the fact that Leeds has 800k people living in it is why they score highly.

you are seeing it as a negative where IMG are seeing it as a bigger market to sell to.

Having said that i do think clubs should be rewarded for percentage increases in crowds somehow.

[Toby Chopra]

I tend to agree with DBoy on this one, although on past discussion I'm not sure any of us are going to die on the hill of defending the catchment criteria.  

For me the key is proven performance over potential, and the best way of rebalancing the criteria that still keeps the idea that big markets offer more sales opportunities would be to simply redistribute the catchment points (1.5) to new, higher tiers in the fandom section.

So, for example, an extra 0.5 at new attendance thresholds at 11k and 14k, and similar top-ups for higher digital thresholds.

The chances are it's only the big market teams that will be able to hit these new thresholds - and the invitation is there for them (or IMG centrally in the case of digital) to go out scoop it up.

But the grading reward will come when it's achieved, not before.

[Dave T]

15 minutes ago, Chrispmartha said:

I think you’re missing the point.

the fact that Leeds has 800k people living in it is why they score highly.

you are seeing it as a negative where IMG are seeing it as a bigger market to sell to.

Having said that i do think clubs should be rewarded for percentage increases in crowds somehow.

That doesn't work. We'd find ourselves giving more points for a small club going from 3k to 3.6k than a club going from 10k to 11k.